guild icon
Mayflower District Court
#npz_v-v-mayflower-senate-et-al
This is the start of #npz_v-v-mayflower-senate-et-al channel.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-11-19 01:15 a.m.
New Case
Case Type
Civil
clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:12 p.m.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-11-19 01:15 a.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Judge bommes.
profileprofile used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-11-19 01:15 a.m.
Case Modified
@profile has added @mantisshrimp69 to the case channel.
profile
profile 2025-11-19 01:15 a.m.
Presiding Honorable Judge, @bommes
bommesbommes used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-11-19 05:48 a.m.
Case Modified
@bommes has added @Anakin to the case channel.
bommes
bommes 2025-11-19 05:48 a.m.
Would the defendant like to respond to this motion?
bommes
bommes 2025-11-19 05:48 a.m.
It is your right, after all
Anakin
Anakin 2025-11-19 06:23 a.m.
I can pay him I just didn’t know this case ended, last I spoke to the Solicitor General in regards to this he was going to fight it and not settle - then we agreed to settle and I received no further updates from the SG in regards of how to make the payment and when(edited)
Anakin
Anakin 2025-11-19 06:23 a.m.
@bommes
bommes
bommes 2025-11-19 08:25 a.m.
Right
AnakinAnakin
I can pay him I just didn’t know this case ended, last I spoke to the Solicitor General in regards to this he was going to fight it and not settle - then we agreed to settle and I ...(edited)
bommes
bommes 2025-11-19 08:26 a.m.
But are you contesting anything in this document? If not I’m going to enforce it in favour of the plaintiff as uncontested
Anakin
Anakin 2025-11-19 08:34 a.m.
The document outlines that I disagreed over making payment in November, the last conversation I had in regards to this topic was on October 7th with the solicitor general Actxrz
Anakin
Anakin 2025-11-19 08:35 a.m.
I was unaware that the payment was still necessary to be sent
Anakin
Anakin 2025-11-19 08:35 a.m.
Could you please add my attorney @singhski
bommes
bommes 2025-11-19 10:14 a.m.
Of course
bommesbommes used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-11-19 10:14 a.m.
Case Modified
@bommes has added @singhski to the case channel.
bommesbommes
Of course
Anakin
Anakin 2025-11-19 11:25 a.m.
Could you also add @actxrz
AnakinAnakin
The document outlines that I disagreed over making payment in November, the last conversation I had in regards to this topic was on October 7th with the solicitor general Actxrz
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 11:54 a.m.
@bommes whenever in my motion I refer as though I’ve been speaking with Defendant anakint0ast
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 11:54 a.m.
What I mean is that I am speaking with his lawyer and representative actxrz
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 11:55 a.m.
Who makes decisions on his behalf
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 11:55 a.m.
The distinction is non-existent
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 11:57 a.m.
However if it is true that actxrz acted as anakin’s attorney and settled a claim, and additionally manufactured a contractual dispute about the settlement’s merits, without his client ever knowing anything about it, that would be a serious instance of ethical misconduct which this court should promptly forward to the state bar
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 11:58 a.m.
And in such a case I would be open to discussing whether the contract is void or enforceable. However we’d need to make sure there actually was ethical misconduct on actxrz’ part first, and then I could research what to do
bommes
bommes 2025-11-19 02:18 p.m.
I do agree it is imperative that we hear actxrz on their account
bommesbommes used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-11-19 02:18 p.m.
Case Modified
@bommes has added @actxrz to the case channel.
bommes
bommes 2025-11-19 02:52 p.m.
@actxrz
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 04:34 p.m.
@bommes respectfully and if I may
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 04:34 p.m.
I think the proper course of action here would be to forward actxrz’s alleged actions to the bar, not as a finding of guilt but as a request that they themselves investigate this conduct
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 04:35 p.m.
It is not the role of the court to find whether a previous attorney to the defense misconducted himself, in this case, since that’s not material to the dispute
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 04:38 p.m.
Meanwhile we should address the motion, and if the defense wants to raise an ethical misconduct issue, the court can determine whether it took place, but by the defense showing that it happened, not by the previous defense counsel being able to effectively “stand trial” of these ethical misconduct allegations here instead of before the state bar
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 04:39 p.m.
Essentially what I am saying is that actxrz is not a party to this case at all and there is no judicial interest in having him defend himself of an allegation that should be forwarded to the bar for them to investigate
bommes
bommes 2025-11-19 04:50 p.m.
I’d like to hear from him and upon his statement I will decide how to proceed
bommesbommes
I’d like to hear from him and upon his statement I will decide how to proceed
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 04:54 p.m.
My point is we should hear from the defense not from the previous disowned defense
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 05:58 p.m.
HELP
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 05:58 p.m.
let's maintain decorum please, npz
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 05:59 p.m.
this is a courtroom.. let's keep our tantrums under control
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:00 p.m.
@bommes your honor, i have an ap world test tmr on the "gunpowder states" and god knows what else. ill respond tonight, if not, i will respond tomorrow afternoon :👍:
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:01 p.m.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:02 p.m.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:03 p.m.
idk if they have the word "ok" in iran or where ever he's from
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:03 p.m.
previous discussions are not of importance
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:22 p.m.
they r acc. we were talking abt the settlement
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:24 p.m.
@bommes this is what I’m talking about
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:24 p.m.
Counsel is defending himself
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:24 p.m.
That’s not what he’s supposed to do here
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:25 p.m.
There’s an allegation of misconduct so the bar should be the one to investigate and adjudicate, there is no reason for the court to get involved unless the actual defense raises the issue to demerit the contract, in which case actxrz still wouldn’t get to defend himself because it wouldn’t be a disciplinary thing
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:25 p.m.
This is a civil action between me and the senate not a disciplinary hearing of actxrz
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:25 p.m.
I ask he be removed
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:26 p.m.
still representing the state bud
actxrzactxrz
let's maintain decorum please, npz
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 06:26 p.m.
Also your honor I’d request, even if you allow act to stay, that you ask him not to make these comments or direct himself to me
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:26 p.m.
jk
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:26 p.m.
js representing anakin
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:26 p.m.
in his individual capacity
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:26 p.m.
per his request
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:26 p.m.
:😃:
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:27 p.m.
simmer down
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
Counsel is defending himself
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 06:31 p.m.
idk what you want me to do man. in iran ik they conform to authority in the snap of the ayatollah's fingers but here we don't do that. you are alleging me of violating the mayflower state bar's rules of professional conduct, i will respond whether you like it or not. and nobody cares if you want to hear it, the judge does. :/
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-19 08:03 p.m.
Though with hopes of not turning this into a ping pong debate, I feel it’s necessary to explain that the appropriate location for actxrz to defend himself in the face of ethical misconduct allegations is the state bar. This court should have no interest in adjudicating whether actxrz acted wrongly except if raised by the defense to disprove some sort of contractual framework
actxrz
actxrz 2025-11-19 08:54 p.m.
l'etat, c'est moi
bommes
bommes 2025-11-20 07:02 a.m.
Well I’m just trying to find out the how and what, and seeing as there appears to be a miscommunication here I want to see if this requires bar referral
bommesbommes
Well I’m just trying to find out the how and what, and seeing as there appears to be a miscommunication here I want to see if this requires bar referral
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-20 11:50 a.m.
The court determining whether a miscommunication took place or not is completely fine so long as it’s to the extent of verifying the validity and enforceability of the contract
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-20 11:50 a.m.
However, when it comes to disciplining mr actxrz the court isn’t the appropriate entity here to determine what happened and whether there was misconduct, and to that end whether actxrz should be disciplined
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-20 11:51 a.m.
Given an allegation that, if true, would constitute ethical misconduct, was made, the court needs to refer it to the bar automatically, it holds no interest in verifying what happened for itself
Anakin
Anakin 2025-11-21 12:23 p.m.
if i may your honor, acxtrz did nothing of the sort and we had agreed previously he would handle all matters and make the payment on my behalf - i apologize for the perhaps poor wording in my previous statement, i was confused as to why i had been summoned and thought this case to be finished.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-21 12:48 p.m.
okay so the contract is fully valid and enforceable
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-21 12:48 p.m.
that's wonderful to hear
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-21 12:49 p.m.
@bommes since there was no ethical misconduct and the contract is valid can we set a deadline for the defense's response
bommes
bommes 2025-11-22 05:31 p.m.
@singhski since youre counsel of record for the defense: i'll give you two days
bommes
bommes 2025-11-22 05:31 p.m.
to file a response
bommesbommes used
/timer
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-11-22 05:31 p.m.
Timer
Monday, November 24, 2025 at 5:31 p.m. (2 months ago)
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 01:33 p.m.
@bommes May you please extend this by one more day?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 01:33 p.m.
It appears this is more interesting than I originally anticipated
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:34 p.m.
@bommes
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:34 p.m.
I'd be against that
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:34 p.m.
they've had a total of 5 days
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:34 p.m.
for a response
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:34 p.m.
in fact, I informed act I'd be filing this action a whopping EIGHT DAYS before actually filing it so in total he had 13 days of anticipation
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:35 p.m.
if they're only now at the stage of assessing the "interestingness" of this case, that's their fault
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 01:41 p.m.
@bommes Exhibits incomplete + this Court didn't send scheduling information, which is customary
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:44 p.m.
exhibits are 100% complete, but if they weren't, that's not an issue of timing, they're the ones that forfeited the privilege to contest because of their extreme lack of diligence
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 01:44 p.m.
Open it
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:44 p.m.
also the court did send scheduling information stipulating a deadline that's in 4 hours
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:44 p.m.
and they're going to miss it
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:44 p.m.
that's their fault, they had time to prepare and they're only now assessing whether the case is interesting in the first place
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:44 p.m.
they literally had 13 days
SinghskiSinghski
Open it
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 01:45 p.m.
I would love to
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 04:18 p.m.
@bommes YH,
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 04:25 p.m.
TLDR; Once a case is dismissed with prejudice, Npz must file a separate civil action under state law to enforce the settlement, and the court cannot compel performance or retain jurisdiction over the dismissed claims.
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 04:58 p.m.
Right. So I’ve skimmed the document you provided and I am convinced by your arguments counsel.

A dismissal with prejudice is indeed final and bars any revival or attempt to bring the case, part or whole, back to court.

However, one thing puzzles me. Does this not in fact count as a separate case? Or do you mean that the plaintiff is seeking the wrong remedy/tort relief in this instance?

@singhski
bommesbommes
Right. So I’ve skimmed the document you provided and I am convinced by your arguments counsel. A dismissal with prejudice is indeed final and bars any revival or attempt to bring...
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:00 p.m.
YH, as you know, for this to be a separate case, he must've filed a seperate civil complaint or petition.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:01 p.m.
Perhaps Chief Judge Wellesley erred in prematurely dismissing the case, but that simply isn't something you should concern yourself with
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:01 p.m.
And the fundamental prerequisite for filing a motion, e.g a motion to compel is essentially the existence of a pending case or action in which the party has a legal interest and standing.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:02 p.m.
@bommes
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
@bommes
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:02 p.m.
?
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:02 p.m.
your honor respectfully
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:03 p.m.
……yes?
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:03 p.m.
one sec
SinghskiSinghski
And the fundamental prerequisite for filing a motion, e.g a motion to compel is essentially the existence of a pending case or action in which the party has a legal interest and ...
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:04 p.m.
And you’re arguing that, because this case is seeking to bring back a matter that was essentially dismissed with prejudice, he lacks standing. Correct?
bommesbommes
And you’re arguing that, because this case is seeking to bring back a matter that was essentially dismissed with prejudice, he lacks standing. Correct?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:04 p.m.
Yes, it should also be noted that Npz can obtain the same relief by filing a civil complaint.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:05 p.m.
Your honor judicial rulings are to be interpreted, like statutes, in the context wherein they were issued, and not given tag-like hypertechnical interpretations such as the one the court is seemingly hoping to adopt
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:05 p.m.
5 M.S.C. 1 § 3102.3 (“Any individual who fails to perform a contractual obligation, as agreed, without
lawful excuse, and causes harm to the other party, shall be liable for breach of contract and shall
be liable for punitive damages up to one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) dollars.”)
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:05 p.m.
Your honor if I may
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
Your honor judicial rulings are to be interpreted, like statutes, in the context wherein they were issued, and not given tag-like hypertechnical interpretations such as the one the...
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:05 p.m.
How is this hypertechnical? It is as easy as saying

case dismissed with prejudice, no motion can arise from that same case?
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.
this is the context wherein the dismissal order was entered
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.
the judge entered it knowing that the court could, still, enforce the contract
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.
Scroll down
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.
there's nothing else below this
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
the judge entered it knowing that the court could, still, enforce the contract
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.
via civil action
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.
Alright one at a time. Please
SinghskiSinghski
via civil action
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.
nope
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.
@mantisshrimp69 go ahead with what you wanted to say unless you already said it
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.
your honor I agreed specifically with the judge, and it says in the contract, that the contract itself can be enforced BOTH
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.
Through a civil action
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:06 p.m.
which yes, I may very well pursue
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.
AND by virtue of the court's directive in that same case
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.
the case remains open to that extent and was only dismissed with prejudice as to other technicalities
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.
the court retains the right to enforce judgment
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.
the judge kept this in mind and that's what he wanted when he dismissed
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.
it's what we all agreed on
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.
the contract says it and the judge did too
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
this is the context wherein the dismissal order was entered
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:07 p.m.
We will also be filing a Motion for Sanctions against Npz_v for misleading this Court in such a shameful manner.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:08 p.m.
like I said, there's nothing else below that
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:08 p.m.
?
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:08 p.m.
unless you see something of importance there?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:08 p.m.
"Clerk directed to close case", let us see how the clerk did so
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:08 p.m.
uhm what
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:09 p.m.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:09 p.m.
I still dont get what youre
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:09 p.m.
what your point is
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:09 p.m.
@bommes How do you suppose a motion can be entertained after this case was duly dismissed with prejudice on the 21st of October 2025?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:09 p.m.
File a civil complaint, stop going around procedure
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:09 p.m.
@bommes I thought it was my turn to talk
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.
You can obtain the same relief by filing a civil complaint + the fundamental prerequisite for filing a motion, e.g a motion to compel is essentially the existence of a pending case or action in which the party has a legal interest and standing. Next.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.
wtf bro
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.
dude its my turn to talk
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.
Why was this not dismissed sua sponte? I wonder.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.
your honor IF I MAY
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.
:🙏:
SinghskiSinghski
Why was this not dismissed sua sponte? I wonder.
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:10 p.m.
Okay I’ll answer that after npz has shared his thoughts
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:11 p.m.
@mantisshrimp69 you have the floor
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:11 p.m.
thank you
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:11 p.m.
so
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:11 p.m.
judicial rulings have to be interpreted in the context wherein they were issued
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:11 p.m.
everybody knows that I think I need no elaboration
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:12 p.m.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:12 p.m.
now
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:12 p.m.
the court did enter a dismissal with prejudice, technically, yes
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:12 p.m.
but that's just a technical term, a category
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:12 p.m.
it does not actually necessarily signify that no motions can be raised, when the very court and the parties agreed that it could
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:12 p.m.
for this you can see the settlement agreement
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:13 p.m.
it reads
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:13 p.m.
@bommes If I may
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:13 p.m.
no
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:13 p.m.
its my turn
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:13 p.m.
you interjected enough
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:13 p.m.
"The Court in the aforementioned civil action shall retain jurisdiction over the same case with the purpose of enforcing this Agreement. Should any provision of this Agreement not be complied with by any Party, the Court shall have authority to resolve it at law or at equity, or through the vehicle of civil contempt of court."
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:13 p.m.
this is in section V technicalities
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.
defendant anakintoast agreed to this
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.
the court verbatim retains jurisdiction over this case, DESPITE the only-nominal "dismissal with prejudice"
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
"The Court in the aforementioned civil action shall retain jurisdiction over the same case with the purpose of enforcing this Agreement. Should any provision of this Agreement not ...
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.
It still retains jurisdiction if you file a complaint. Next.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.
to enforce payment
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.
@bommes can you remove him from the case chat
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.
ill wait and then ill continue
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:14 p.m.
cus this is impossible
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:15 p.m.
Cool, so, that's just not what this says, and I hope you aren't banking on HH not reading this LOL
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:15 p.m.
Please see this case :🐒:
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:15 p.m.
1. it is what it says
2. why r u still talking
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:15 p.m.
@singhski Counsel. What part of “you have the floor (npz)” fell on deaf ears?
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:16 p.m.
Well he's just took a shit all over the floor
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:16 p.m.
Nasty one at that
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:16 p.m.
@bommes I move for sanctions
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:16 p.m.
That’s enough. I’m this close to ordering you to show cause. This is your first and only warning.
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:17 p.m.
Anything more out of you unwarranted and I’m holding you in contempt.(edited)
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:17 p.m.
thank you
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:17 p.m.
Continue
SinghskiSinghski
It still retains jurisdiction if you file a complaint. Next.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:17 p.m.
since we're already at it Ill address this
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:18 p.m.
"The Court in the aforementioned civil action shall retain jurisdiction over the same case with the purpose of enforcing this Agreement. Should any provision of this Agreement not be complied with by any Party, the Court shall have authority to resolve it at law or at equity, or through the vehicle of civil contempt of court."
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:18 p.m.
that says very clearly
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:18 p.m.
the court RETAINS JURISDICTION, in THIS same case, to ENFORCE
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:19 p.m.
there is also a provision in the agreement that says defendant is liable if he breaches the contract repeatedly. yes. But that is only one of the measures we agreed on. We agreed that the court could compel payment in this same case, as it very often does in several cases, should the defendant not abide
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:19 p.m.
the fact it's dismissed with prejudice doesn't override this
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:20 p.m.
and if, really, there is any doubt to the fact that judicial rulings are owed deference and in-depth interpretation, keeping the context of the reality in mind, which I doubt there is, I will be happy to provide a case that ISN'T off the top of my head like this one
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:20 p.m.
i admit this case might not have been the best example. I dont have too much time to research this rn to send it here but it's something I know for a fact
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:20 p.m.
I will if I need to
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:21 p.m.
do I need to @bommes
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:22 p.m.
Id like to say something else also
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
do I need to @bommes
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:22 p.m.
It’s your case, honestly I’m not about to reinterpret dismissal with prejudice so I’ll have to read up on the old case if that’s still somewhere
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:22 p.m.
it's in
UserUser
Message could not be loaded.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:23 p.m.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:23 p.m.
but I have something else to say
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:23 p.m.
so
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:23 p.m.
The reason why people cannot file motions after a case is dismissed with prejudice is because that case is deemed to have been adjudicated finally
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:23 p.m.
basically it's res judicata or whatever other latin term
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:23 p.m.
right
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.
sorry to cut you short but I can’t give you the floor for all eternity
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.
it's the same reason why you can't keep going in a case after the judge and jury decides you're guilty
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.
just 1 min
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.
alright
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.
BUT
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.
the thing is
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.
courts can, and do, (in mayflower) retain jurisdiction even after a case was ended and a final order is entered
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.
to make sure that payment is executed
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:24 p.m.
I can cite you 50 cases if you give me 10 mins where this happens
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:25 p.m.
courts constantly ensure that a defendant pays if he's liable, and they use civil contempt to this end
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:25 p.m.
The case is res judicata. a final order is entered. and yet they have jurisdiction over making sure that payment is followed through
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:25 p.m.
the issues of law, fact, are all finalized—all that remains is making the payment, and courts retain the right to enforce that
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:25 p.m.
the same happened here
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:26 p.m.
the court simply retained the right to enforce payment, the difference is that judge kezzera wanted to archive/delete the case chat bc he likes to have a clean docket, but it's the same exact thing
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:26 p.m.
that's all
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
the court simply retained the right to enforce payment, the difference is that judge kezzera wanted to archive/delete the case chat bc he likes to have a clean docket, but it's the...
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:26 p.m.
bc he believed that the defendants not making payment is very unlikely
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:26 p.m.
and if i did need to ask the court to enforce i could just reopen
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:26 p.m.
that's all
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:27 p.m.
I thank the court very much for lending me their time, I ask it doesnt render a decision for a while since I need to get back to studying asap and I can't respond to the (Im assuming) incoming rebuttal from the defense immediately(edited)
SinghskiSinghski
We will also be filing a Motion for Sanctions against Npz_v for misleading this Court in such a shameful manner.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:28 p.m.
And if this motion is entertained (e.g. thru OSC) pls make a separate channel for me to talk abt this there thanks
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
"The Court in the aforementioned civil action shall retain jurisdiction over the same case with the purpose of enforcing this Agreement. Should any provision of this Agreemen...
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:33 p.m.
@bommes is it alright if I just go ahead
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:36 p.m.
okay yea I’m giving the floor to Singh now
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:37 p.m.
@singhski go ahead
bommesbommes
okay yea I’m giving the floor to Singh now
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:38 p.m.
Do you think courts are bound to exercise jurisdiction indefinitely by your contract? Wellesley clearly disagrees because he dismissed your action with prejudice. Any action surviving is incompatible with the doctrine of res judicata. Simply stating it in the contract cannot override a court’s discretion over it's jurisdiction. The clause says the court can resolve breaches:

"…at law or at equity, or through the vehicle of civil contempt of court.”

Yes, "[t]he Court...shall retain jurisdiction over the same case..." but it certainly doesn't have to. And it hasn't. If the court declines to exercise jurisdiction, or if the agreement was not made part of a court order, Npz_v can still file a separate civil action for breach of contract.

Lex non cogit ad impossibilia, the law does not compel what is impossible, and a contract forcing the Court to retain it's jurisdiction, even when it absolutely can't, compels the impossible. Now that the methods listed in the clause are not legally feasible, the only practical alternative is for Npz to pursue civil action.
(edited)
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:39 p.m.
oops my chatpgt prompt showed up there
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:39 p.m.
LOL
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:42 p.m.
This is the rational chain of reasoning:

Albert dismissed the action with prejudice -> By law, that bars the same claim or any claim that could have been brought in the same case, i.e res judicata -> NPZ’s argument that the court “retains jurisdiction forever” contradicts this. -> npz seeks to force the court to act through this contract, when it certainly doesn't have to, -> the law can't compel what is impossible, and dismissal with prejudice has made these proceedings an impossibility, -> and while Npz can’t resurrect the old case, he can file a separate civil action to enforce the contract
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 05:44 p.m.
@bommes that's pretty much how simple it is imo, if you have any questions, shoot
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:46 p.m.
I actually don’t. A dismissal with prejudice is just that. What it does is clear and I do not see how plaintiff’s rights would be impeded if this matter is dismissed sua sponte
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:47 p.m.
You’ve presented him two possible avenues to take instead. I do not wish to create precedent that dismissal with prejudice can somehow be circumvented
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:47 p.m.
That would undermine the very essence of it
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:47 p.m.
Cn we have a hearing
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:47 p.m.
For another day
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:47 p.m.
We can go criss cross and we can get into it better
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:48 p.m.
Cus from the perspective of the judge having dismissed with prejudice but NOT wanting to enforce payment is inconsistent with his remarks and comments
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:49 p.m.
And further courts constantly have jurisdiction even after res judicata status of a case to resolve enforcement of payment
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:49 p.m.
For example look at gamerboy v richo, the case was dismissed with prejudice and the court enforced that the plaintiffs had to pay attorney’s fees AFTER the case was dismissed
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:49 p.m.
Etc
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:51 p.m.
I do not believe a hearing is needed. I am going to rule in like with the Chief Judge and uphold the dismissal with prejudice in this particular matter. You’re given avenues to seek the relief you require and I deem it is best to follow either of those paths.

You are welcome to petition the Supreme Court if you believe this to be erroneous.
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:51 p.m.
in line*
bommes
bommes 2025-11-24 05:52 p.m.
Official ruling (paperless) will be out tomorrow
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:54 p.m.
Okay so can I ask a question
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:55 p.m.
I mean I just dont think this applies cus
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:55 p.m.
Res judicata is in place yes the merits are decided and so is the law, it’s barred from being re-heard
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:55 p.m.
But it’s not being re-heard, we’re just asking for damages that we’re entitled to in the same case
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:55 p.m.
In accordance with the final order
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:57 p.m.
Imagine a world where a final order means the court can’t do anything about the case any longer. Once the judge bangs the gavel and says “the defendant is liable”, nothing would happen. The defendant wouldn’t pay. Because the court wouldn’t have jurisdiction to give him civil contempt or to enforce any kind of payment. But that’s not how we do it
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:58 p.m.
A final order, whether that be a dismissal or a late-stage adjudication, is a final order as to the merits and the law of the case. But the court absolutely has jurisdiction to make sure that the final order is followed
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 05:59 p.m.
Imagine a court enters a permanent injunction at the end of a case. Since the case ended, can the court not give contempt to the defendant if he violates that injunction because “there’s no jurisdiction due to res judicata”? Res judicata does not mean that the final order can’t be enforced
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
Imagine a world where a final order means the court can’t do anything about the case any longer. Once the judge bangs the gavel and says “the defendant is liable”, nothing would ha...
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 06:01 p.m.
It is customary dismissal with prejudice be entered after the plaintiff has certified that the defendant has complied in full
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 06:02 p.m.
For whatever reason, that didn’t happen, and your only recourse at this point is to file a separate civil action.
SinghskiSinghski
It is customary dismissal with prejudice be entered after the plaintiff has certified that the defendant has complied in full
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:02 p.m.
Customary ≠ necessary or mandatory
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:03 p.m.
“Dismissed with prejudice” is just a label, you need to pair it with the context and meaning of that label
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 06:03 p.m.
Dismissal with prejudice indicates that the last ruling is final.(edited)
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 06:04 p.m.
But I think we ought to put this to rest unless HH has any other questions.
SinghskiSinghski
Dismissal with prejudice indicates that the last ruling is final.(edited)
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:04 p.m.
That’s because irl a final order does not need to be enforced. Payment is made extrajudicially through garnering wages, repossessing assets, services etc
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:04 p.m.
Here we don’t have that so the court bears the responsibility of doing that
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
Customary ≠ necessary or mandatory
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 06:05 p.m.
I don’t see why this Court should stray away from that practice. Would be a repudiation of the essence of the common law.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:06 p.m.
The court already strayed away from that practice when it dismissed WHILE wanting to enforce. Interpreting it as what you want it to be after the fact doesn’t change what it is
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 06:07 p.m.
Not really, the Court still retains its ability to enforce because you are completely free to file a separate action.
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 06:08 p.m.
I don’t see why this Court should make up jurisdiction in order to correct the premature dismissal in the old case
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:08 p.m.
The court retains its ability to enforce in this action. That’s what the parties agreed to, the court accepted, and a dismissal with prejudice doesn’t contradict that, especially when the judge said to open the case again if the defendant didn’t comply
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 06:08 p.m.
This is a matter of fictional jurisdiction
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 06:09 p.m.
Npz, if it were that simple, you wouldn’t be arguing this here. You would be making different arguments in the old channel before the Chief Judge.
SinghskiSinghski
I don’t see why this Court should make up jurisdiction in order to correct the premature dismissal in the old case
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:09 p.m.
Jurisdiction already exists even though a mistake was (in your eyes, not mine) made. The court “correcting” it because it disagrees, without following through, is what’s wrong
SinghskiSinghski
Npz, if it were that simple, you wouldn’t be arguing this here. You would be making different arguments in the old channel before the Chief Judge.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:10 p.m.
Old channel was closed because the judge thought the possibilities that the defendant wouldn’t pay, and that I’d have to ask for the court to compel, were slim. He wanted a clean docket. It’s nothing more than that, check the transcript
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 06:10 p.m.
Clearly, Albert has employed his discretion in this way to preclude other forms of enforcing the decision in favor of you filing a separate action.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:11 p.m.
That is not what happened
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-24 06:11 p.m.
At least that is what the Court has effectively done
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:12 p.m.
Just because it looks like there’s no jurisdiction at a glance doesn’t mean there isn’t
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:12 p.m.
The judge closed it with that express purpose, this is reflected in the transcript
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:12 p.m.
Furthermore the dismissal with prejudice could entirely be credited to the fact that an archived case needs to be categorized and in choosing one they put with prejudice
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:13 p.m.
But this is more complex than mere categorization
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:13 p.m.
It’s dismissed with prejudice but the court retains jurisdiction to enforce. That’s literally not self-contradictory at all
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-24 06:13 p.m.
And it happens all the time
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-28 06:09 a.m.
@bommes When can we expect the ruling?
bommes
bommes 2025-11-28 06:14 a.m.
WEEKEND
bommes
bommes 2025-11-28 06:14 a.m.
caps
bommes
bommes 2025-11-28 06:15 a.m.
@singhski
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
Furthermore the dismissal with prejudice could entirely be credited to the fact that an archived case needs to be categorized and in choosing one they put with prejudice
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-28 02:15 p.m.
@bommes
bommes
bommes 2025-11-29 09:33 a.m.
@mantisshrimp69 @singhski are you okay with a paperless ruling e.g. a ruling only published in rulings
bommesbommes
@mantisshrimp69 @singhski are you okay with a paperless ruling e.g. a ruling only published in rulings
Singhski
Singhski 2025-11-29 09:33 a.m.
yeah that’s fine
judicialFLOW
judicialFLOW Bot2025-11-29 11:14 a.m.
(edited)
Appearance Request
Requester: @mantisshrimp69
Party: me
Channel: npz_v-v-mayflower-senate-et-al

A Magistrate Judge or higher may approve or deny below.
Status
:✅: Approved by @bommes
Request ID: e8280b81fb654b52be0f7c5bda75a3ed
ApproveDeny
judicialFLOW
judicialFLOW Bot2025-11-29 11:14 a.m.
@mantisshrimp69 appears for me (approved by @bommes).
judicialFLOW pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:12 p.m.
bommes
bommes 2025-11-29 11:15 a.m.
@mantisshrimp69 what about you
bommesbommes
@mantisshrimp69 @singhski are you okay with a paperless ruling e.g. a ruling only published in rulings
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:20 a.m.
So long as it’s sufficient
bommes
bommes 2025-11-29 11:22 a.m.
i'll take that as a yes
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:22 a.m.
If it’s sufficient yes
bommes
bommes 2025-11-29 11:25 a.m.
@singhski @mantisshrimp69 ruling is out, sorry if I threw a curveball during that semi-structured hearing earlier but I dove deeper into the matter at hand to ensure I had all the facts and information present
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:26 a.m.
Thank you your honor I appreciate it
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:26 a.m.
Now that jurisdiction is established can we delve into the merits?
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:27 a.m.
The issue at the moment is contractual interpretation, I’d love to have a hearing (just so that we don’t end up arguing in a ping-pong fashion in the case chat like earlier)(edited)
bommes
bommes 2025-11-29 11:29 a.m.
We'll have to find a time to do this in-game since they don't like us using discord...

well if that bs chat filter age doohickey ends up being implemented i refuse to do court in-game
(edited)
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:29 a.m.
I mean that’s assuming the defense takes the same stance they took privately with me
bommesbommes
We'll have to find a time to do this in-game since they don't like us using discord... well if that bs chat filter age doohickey ends up being implemented i refuse to do court in-...(edited)
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:29 a.m.
Who’s they
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:29 a.m.
Anyways yeah I was thinking in game
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
Who’s they
bommes
bommes 2025-11-29 11:30 a.m.
higher ups mainly, they probably just want the game to have some sort of use for the judicial team and i can't blame them
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:30 a.m.
My only issue is
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:30 a.m.
The judge seat in the district court is too far away from the rest
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:30 a.m.
You can’t see what the judge says and the judge can’t conversely see what the litigants say
bommes
bommes 2025-11-29 11:31 a.m.
we could also try the courthouse in mersea
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:31 a.m.
It seems like a nothingburger but honestly it is like #1 annoying thing ever it’s impossible to do anything
bommesbommes
we could also try the courthouse in mersea
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:31 a.m.
Yes or scom
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:31 a.m.
Mersea is probably better
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-11-29 11:32 a.m.
Now that I’m done with my exams for the most part I’m available after 10 am till 11 pm utc-3, there may be exceptions tho
judicialFLOW
judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-01 12:38 p.m.
(edited)
Appearance Request
Requester: @mantisshrimp69
Party: me
Channel: npz_v-v-mayflower-senate-et-al

A Magistrate Judge or higher may approve or deny below.
Status
:⏳: Request expired.
Request ID: b17f10e4dd4b4b7484c84c78c9a54c1d
ApproveDeny
judicialFLOW
judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-01 04:24 p.m.
@mantisshrimp69 appears for me (approved by @bommes).
judicialFLOW pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:12 p.m.
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:24 p.m.
weren’t you already in the channel? what happened @mantisshrimp69
bommesbommes
weren’t you already in the channel? what happened @mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:25 p.m.
a certain justice keeps giving me a role that hinders my ability to speak in the server without moderation approval because he is mad at me or something
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:25 p.m.
so I have to rejoin each time which in turn takes away my perms here
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:25 p.m.
that’s a bold accusation to make
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:25 p.m.
yes well it's true unfortunately
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:25 p.m.
unfortunately for you I have no way to verify
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:26 p.m.
anyhow, I hope it doesn’t happen too often :/ both for you and the court
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:26 p.m.
I hope that too
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:26 p.m.
can we set a deadline for the defense to respond to the motion (assuming they want to)? a hearing is only necessary if they actually have an argument to make against my motion, once they send their response
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:26 p.m.
2 days is standard
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:41 p.m.
hold on, which motion? the one to compel payment right
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:42 p.m.
since they’re the government technically, they get 5 days
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:42 p.m.
actually screw “technically” they quite literally are
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:42 p.m.
Oh wait that’s only if the solicitor general is representing mb
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:43 p.m.
@singhski you’ll get 3 days from me to respond to the plaintiff’s motion to compel payment, if no response is made after that I’ll consider it uncontested
bommesbommes used
/timer
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-12-01 04:43 p.m.
Timer
Thursday, December 4, 2025 at 4:43 p.m. (2 months ago)
bommesbommes
since they’re the government technically, they get 5 days
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:44 p.m.
what rule is tht
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:45 p.m.
uhh
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:45 p.m.
I don’t have the rule book handy but it’s in the rules of civil procedure
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:45 p.m.
lemme find
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
what rule is tht
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:46 p.m.
Mayfl. R. Civ. P 13(a)
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:47 p.m.
13(a) says individuals get 5 days and government gets 7
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:47 p.m.
but that's for civil complaints and defenses/answers to the civil complaint
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:47 p.m.
not for motions
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:47 p.m.
standard practice for motions is 48hrs for a response
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:47 p.m.
see e.g. mayf. d. ct. 3(8)
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:48 p.m.
it also states stuff about counterclaims, unless that just means they sue you for something else in turn which would make your take correct
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.
a counterclaim is when a plaintiff makes a legal claim against you, and the defendant in turn makes a legal claim against the defendant
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.
but that's still early (pretrial) civil procedure, not what we have here
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.
right
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.
this is just a motion
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.
arguably, still
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.
I filed this motion like ages ago
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:49 p.m.
imo they should get only 1 day
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
I filed this motion like ages ago
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:50 p.m.
you did, but then we had the whole yes dismissal no dismissal back and forth which I had to settle
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:50 p.m.
so I don’t think they’ve been tardy
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:51 p.m.
yeah but the ruling was out a couple days ago, and besides, ive warned them that id file this motion for 8 days before actually filing it (since i was banned)
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:51 p.m.
tell you what, I’m rolling it back to 48 hours per the standard
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:51 p.m.
we’ll take it from there
bommesbommes used
/timer
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-12-01 04:52 p.m.
Timer
Wednesday, December 3, 2025 at 4:52 p.m. (2 months ago)
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-01 04:52 p.m.
kk
clerkFlowBotclerkFlow
Click to see command.
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:52 p.m.
cc: @singhski
bommes
bommes 2025-12-01 04:52 p.m.
new deadline for responding to the plaintiff’s motion to compel payment (see case card for details), take note please(edited)
judicialFLOW
judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-01 07:44 p.m.
(edited)
Appearance Request
Requester: @mantisshrimp69
Party: me
Channel: npz_v-v-mayflower-senate-et-al

A Magistrate Judge or higher may approve or deny below.
Status
:⏳: Request expired.
Request ID: 24dbcc6e74e546ccbfc229a98e72e3e3
ApproveDeny
judicialFLOW
judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-02 02:04 a.m.
@mantisshrimp69 appears for me (approved by @bommes).
judicialFLOW pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:12 p.m.
judicialFLOW
judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-03 07:53 p.m.
(edited)
Appearance Request
Requester: @mantisshrimp69
Party: me
Channel: npz_v-v-mayflower-senate-et-al

A Magistrate Judge or higher may approve or deny below.
Status
:⏳: Request expired.
Request ID: 326957503bf8436e916180b06ece8661
ApproveDeny
judicialFLOW
judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-04 12:44 a.m.
@mantisshrimp69 appears for me (approved by @bommes).
judicialFLOW pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:12 p.m.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 09:58 a.m.
hi @bommes
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 09:58 a.m.
the 48 hours passed 17 hours ago
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 09:58 a.m.
no response to the motion so can you rule
bommes
bommes 2025-12-04 10:31 a.m.
yeah I’ll rule as is, his right to a response is considered to be waived
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 11:59 a.m.
@bommes
bommes
bommes 2025-12-07 12:14 p.m.
yes sorry
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 01:50 p.m.
Nw
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-08 07:14 p.m.
@bommes Don't forget your honor
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-08 07:14 p.m.
he owes an additional $5k every day that passes
bommes
bommes 2025-12-09 01:47 a.m.
My delay does not become his burden
bommesbommes
My delay does not become his burden
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 10:26 a.m.
It does
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 10:27 a.m.
Because every day that passes that he doesn’t pay me and instead waits for a court case to finish counts as his fault according to the contract
bommes
bommes 2025-12-09 12:26 p.m.
@mantisshrimp69 @singhski ruling published
bommes
bommes 2025-12-09 12:27 p.m.
upon this payment being satisfied and proof of this being provided, this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice
bommes
bommes 2025-12-09 12:27 p.m.
once and for all(edited)
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:33 p.m.
@bommes "As a result of the court's tardiness in relation to a ruling, any late fees as a result of this delay are waived, calculated by the number of days the ruling was delayed multiplied by the agreed upon late-fee."
bommes
bommes 2025-12-09 12:33 p.m.
correct
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:33 p.m.
so the court is waiving my money on my behalf?
bommes
bommes 2025-12-09 12:33 p.m.
the court is saying that any delay in ruling is not the fault of the defendant
bommes
bommes 2025-12-09 12:33 p.m.
in regards to late fees
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:34 p.m.
it's not a delay in the ruling
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:34 p.m.
it's his refusal to pay
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:34 p.m.
you're looking at this as if though you're responsible because you were tardy
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:35 p.m.
but in reality whether or not you were tardy the reason we're here in the first place is because defendant refuses to pay
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:35 p.m.
every day that he refuses to pay, including days your ruling is pending, is his fault and he needs to pay accordingly
bommes
bommes 2025-12-09 12:35 p.m.
hm
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:35 p.m.
imagine this as if it's
bommes
bommes 2025-12-09 12:35 p.m.
how many days are we talking
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:36 p.m.
imagine as if it's pre judgment interest, but contractual instead of by statute
bommesbommes
how many days are we talking
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:36 p.m.
uhh
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:36 p.m.
nov 8 he refused
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:36 p.m.
so that's
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:36 p.m.
30 days
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:37 p.m.
assuming he pays today
otherwise each day he doesn't it's another 5k
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:37 p.m.
175+30x5
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:37 p.m.
325k
bommes
bommes 2025-12-09 12:38 p.m.
jesus christ
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 12:39 p.m.
well said
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
every day that he refuses to pay, including days your ruling is pending, is his fault and he needs to pay accordingly
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-09 01:02 p.m.
@bommes do you agree then
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 10:22 p.m.
@actxrz can I get my money.
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 10:22 p.m.
when can u Hop
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 10:22 p.m.
on
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
@bommes do you agree then
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-12 02:10 p.m.
@bommes
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 08:40 a.m.
@bommes whatever the case I haven’t been paid yet and it’s a day past the 16th
mantisshrimp69mantisshrimp69
@bommes whatever the case I haven’t been paid yet and it’s a day past the 16th
bommes
bommes 2025-12-17 10:46 a.m.
then late fees apply, we're not allowed to hold people indefinitely to force payment unfortunately. However I can have him arrested for contempt and notified through the proper channels.
bommesbommes
then late fees apply, we're not allowed to hold people indefinitely to force payment unfortunately. However I can have him arrested for contempt and notified through the proper cha...
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 03:51 p.m.
Can you issue consecutive arrest warrants
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 03:51 p.m.
Ur allowed to do that
bommes
bommes 2025-12-17 03:56 p.m.
I don’t see why not
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:44 p.m.
@bommes hello ur honor
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:44 p.m.
honor honoripedai
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:44 p.m.
im leaving clark to become an alabama farmer
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:44 p.m.
i forgive defendant for all his debts he is pardoned under the Law
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:44 p.m.
@actxrz bless you child
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:45 p.m.
you are forgiven
mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:45 p.m.
or some siht
bommes
bommes 2025-12-19 05:58 a.m.
Well then
bommes
bommes 2025-12-19 05:58 a.m.
Then I guess this contract is now null and void
bommes
bommes 2025-12-19 05:58 a.m.
@profile you can archive this
krmkrm used
/transcript
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2026-01-18 11:16 a.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2026-01-18 11:16 a.m.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2026-01-18 11:16 a.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Volume XV.
Exported 418 messages